The Tao of Gaming

Since I haven't done any race in a while...

Terraforming Robots 3 Cost Development (2 VP).
Settle — Draw a card after you settle/conquer a planet.
Consume — Consume a rare good for 1 VP + 1 Card.

Alexfrog, in his card-by-card guide, says:

Terraforming Robots (3) */* Until the expansion is out, this is overcosted. You’re basically paying one extra card for the fact that it says ‘Terraforming’. That makes it harder to make use of. However, it can be good, in military or production strategies that want a brown consume power. Or with New Economy, to score. I’m sure its better in the expansion when there are terraforming cards.

I'm not sure exactly how Alex gets overcosted ... If you develop this, then you spend 3 cards (including this one) to get this out. If you hit this early enough, then you'll probably get your money back from settle rebates. Still, with the "time value of money" earning back your income may not be particularly good. Getting double your cards back is better.

First of all, let's look at the mining worlds. There are 13 brown planets (6 production, 7 Windfall). Of those, exactly one has a consume power — New Earth. Apparently mining planets export, require a destination. Terraforming Robots will be a big interest to Alpha Centauri or anyone going the brown route. The real downside for Terraforming Robots, from Alpha Centauri's point of view, is that it isn't the Mining Conglomerate. The conglomerate earns income faster and triggers many more six developments (Mining League, Trade League; both score for New Economy and Galactic Federation). The conglomerate works less well in a diversified economy, whereas Terraforming Robots are fine with a single mining world. It won't score VP for Mining League, but it does consume efficiently.

The Conglomerate is a "brown pioneer" card. Assuming you have the most mining worlds, you'll get two extra cards per produce, an extra card per trade, and be able to consume with your spare worlds. The Robots are metallic leeches. If someone else consumes, you get a card + VP. You get an extra card whenever you settle, which lets you leech a military sprinter. Neither leeching role is amazing, but opponents tend to stop calling roles where you can leech for huge draws (unless they have a monstrous setup). How much would you have to be getting to call produce if it triggered someone else's mining conglomerate?

As Alex notes, A military strategy will happily play this card. Conquer a world, draw two cards. You'll probably luck into a military world every 3rd turn you do that (or get enough to pay for a six cost development).

Terraforming Robots will improve in the first expansion. I honestly don't remember what the Terraforming Guild does. You can't just slap down the Robots, but they work in a reasonable number of situations. If you've got any mining planets at all and are short of consumption powers, they're dandy, you'll consume an extra good and earn several cards back, not to mention rebate cards. A reasonable middle game card.

Update: I do, however, remember that the expansion contains another development that combines well with this ... Improved Logistics. Since the card hasn't been spoiled (that I've seen), let's just say that it combines well. (I.L. is a game changing card, to be sure).

This thread on BGG mentions what the Terraforming Guild does ... 2VP for each Terraforming card or windfall, and an extra rebate after each settle, and produce on a windfall world.

There's someone running a team RftG game over at BGG via Geeklist.

May as well knock this out, too. To recap:

You are New Sparta in a 3 player game (against Alpha Centauri and Epsilon Eridani, if you care). The deck hits you over the head with:

• Alien Tech. Institute (Alien 6-dev)
• Lost Alien Warship (Defense 5 Windfall, +2 Military)
• Deserted Alien Colony (5 Cost Alien Windfall)
• Replicant Robots (-2 Cost for worlds)
• Blaster Gem Mines (3 Cost Rare Windfall, +1 Military)
• Spice World (Novelty Production, +2 to trade a novelty).

The panel selected:

• ZZdroman -- RR & BGM, Exp+5
• Alexfrog, Huber, Lou -- RR & BGM, Exp+1
• Frunk -- DAC & SW, Exp+1
• Linnaeus, Rubbo -- ATI & DAC, Exp+1
• Tom Lehmann, Jeff -- RR & SW, Exp+1
• Phil -- RR & SW, Exp+1

OK, apart from ZZdroman, everyone explored + 1. I see one strong argument for exploring +5. New Military Tactics. If you get that, it's off to the races. Keeping DAC for a 2nd turn play is interesting, and one I overlooked.

Brian at the table. As usual, I took a different road. I pitched the Blaster Gem Mines and Deserted Alien Colony, saving SPICE WORLD as my expected first play. At the table, the deck hits new sparta over the head with the explore, given you Avian Uplift Race and Alien Rosetta Stone world. There was a T1 Settle, so I dropped the Avian World, sold it next turn ... on my last turn I played the 6 cost alien production world for free (thanks to Robots, ATI, and Rosetta Stone)... a brutal game for the opponents.

But, was I right? In retrospect, keeping the DAC would have given me a better backup plan (but pretty much anyone will be off to the races with that explore. I can see pitching RR, but keeping them gives options, especially when you've got a very good non-military play (Spice World). If there's a Develop and Settle (which is unlikely, but not impossible), you could drop SW on T1 (at the cost of your hand). More realistically, you can develop on T2, which lets you get SW for free and keep one other card to develop (two if there's another explore).

To recap:

You are Old Earth in a four player game (no Epsilon Eridani). You get:

• Mining Robots (MR)
• Terraforming Robots (TR)
• Expedition Force (EF)
• New Military Tactics (NMT)
• Free Trade Association (FTA)
• Pan Galactic League (PGL)

And the options:

• Frunk -- MR & FTA, Develop and build EF (Explore+1 if group doesn't often explore).
• Kester -- FTA & PGL, Explore +5
• Tucker -- MR & TR, Develop EF.
• Matt -- TR & PGL, Explore+1.
• Alexfrog, Lou & Phil -- MR & TR, Explore+5
• Joe & Luthrin -- MR & FTA, Explore+1
• Anthony & Jeff -- MR & TR, Explore +1
• Wei-Hwa -- FTA & PGL, Develop

Brian at the table -- You know, it's been several weeks. Fortunately I remember. MR & PGL, Explore +1.

Almost everyone pitches mining robots. I can see the point behind pitching both sixes, the mining robots could become good really quickly (you get radioactive world or destroyed world and can turn it into a production world). In fact, given the speed issue, I think that Terraforming Robots may be better as the first card to pitch.

As for the sixes, which one to keep is a matter of taste, and 'none' could be right.

The 'consensus' pick (MR & FTA) splits between +1, +5 or Develop. In fact, there is no real consensus. The +1s try to get a worlds and stay greedy (as I like in 4 player games). The +5s bank on practically locking up a good world.

The develops delay the explore for one turn, and make sure that if someone else explores and a settle hits, they can drop NMT if they got a conquerable world. This argument can't be dismissed lightly.

In summary, I don't think there is a consensus play.

Results at the table -- The Explore + 1 resulted in crap, just FYI.

Brian after reflection -- Actually, I'm leaning towards the early develop, to drop EF or NMT. (I haven't decided). I'm also leaning towards pitching the FTA & PGL. They are both long-term speculative plays you can't afford. You need something good to happen, but both of those require something great. Even if I keep them, they should have money. (To be fair, TR is almost certainly money as well and MR will be unless you get a cheap rare windfall).

No scores given, since I can't decide.

A while ago someone asked if it mattered that a game was four player vs 3 player. I didn't really have an answer then. One thing that I realized (later) is that I take 'swingier' actions with more players.

[This idea is based I read many years ago in the Bridge World, but I can't find it online)].

Assume that your opponents will score in a normal distribution. Now say you could wave your hands and magically score the same each time. A bit above average (say, 1 standard deviation). In a (generic) two player game, you'd win fairly often. But as more players are added, you'd do poorly. Let's make this concrete. You always score 13 points, and your opponents roll 3d6. With one opponent, you like your odds. With 2 or 3, you are doing ok. Anyone who thinks they'll win against six opponents has never rolled up a D&D character.

Single-session Matchpoint bridge tournaments take this to an extreme (which is why the article was published). With dozens (or hundreds) of pairs, skill gets you so far, but swinging for the fences is useful too. (Longer games and other forms of scoring change that).

So consider a "New Sparta needs a military world" opening. Do you explore +5 or +1/+1? With more players, I feel more strongly that Explore +1/+1 is correct ... Even if the +5 gives me a good card 100% of the time, I'd rather take my chances getting a good card and some spare cash. With three opponents, the safe 35 points isn't as tempting as shooting for 45 (but often getting 20).

As Race is often 2-4 players, this isn't a huge effect ... yet.

With more players you can also swing for the fences by calling speculative trades (produces), and other tactics.

What else? With more players I'm slightly more worried about releasing good cards for opponents (since 4 players tend to go through the deck two full times, while less players usually peter out at 1.5 or so), but that's a minor concern compared to other issues.

I haven't really thought of other issues relating to # of players...

I realize I never answered #3... perhaps later.

You are New Sparta in a 3 player game (against Alpha Centauri and Epsilon Eridani, if you care). The deck hits you over the head with:

• Alien Tech. Institute (Alien 6-dev)
• Lost Alien Warship (Defense 5 Windfall, +2 Military)
• Deserted Alien Colony (5 Cost Alien Windfall)
• Replicant Robots (-2 Cost for worlds)
• Blaster Gem Mines (3 Cost Rare Windfall, +1 Military)
• Spice World (Novelty Production, +2 to trade a novelty).

Update: Fixed the card errors above.

Two robots, two soldiers, and two goods specialists walk into a bar...

You are Old Earth in a four player game (no Epsilon Eridani). You get:

• Mining Robots
• Terraforming Robots
• Expedition Force
• New Military Tactics
• Free Trade Association
• Pan Galactic League

Here's the original post, you have Sparta and Mining League (ML), Free Trade Association (FTA), and 4 worlds to choose from (Rebel Miners, Radioactive World, New Vinland, Spice World).

Peoples discards and actions.

• Alex & Jeff G agree — Spice World and Radioactive World; Explore +1.
• MattS & Lou agree — Spice World and Radioactive World; Explore +5.
• Chris — Spice World & Radioactive World; Settle.
• MattC — FTA and Spice World; Explore +1.
• Kester & Frunk agree — FTA and Spice World; Settle.
• Wei-Hwa — FTA & Spice World; Settle 45%, Exp +1 30%, Exp +5 25%.
• Phil & Joe agree-- ML and Radioactive World; Explore +1.

If I can count, then five people pitch Spice World and Radioactive World, although disagree on how to proceed. Four people pitch FTA and Spice World (and disagree). Two people pitch the mining league and go novelty. Explore +1 gets the nod from 5.3 panelists, Settle gets 3.45, and Explore +5 2.25.

Brian at the Table — I went with Alex and Jeff. My hand can go for either six, so I keep them and the best world for each; call the greedy explore and await further developments. I may get a reasonable military world, investment credits /expedition force (and the cash to buy it) or hit the jackpot — a small novelty/rare military world that makes my decision.

Brian with hindsight — The problem with keeping both is that you (by necessity) pitch your only windfall. It's tempting to settle early because AC will probably consume ... and that hurts Old Earth and ELC (who would consume any windfall). But to do that, I really need a windfall and a nonwindfall, which means I'm leaning towards Wei-Hwa's play. That gives up on the T1 develop ... but how many developments could I realistically want to play? Investment Credits, New Military Tactics, Expedition Force ... any more? [Actually, there is one intriguing other answer ... Diversified Economy. Now you use your sixes to help pay for that ASAP ... you can produce/consume with just Rebel Miners, then add New Vinland and you are off to the races].

In addition, you've already pitched a nice card whichever way you go. If you are going novelty, you really really want spice world. (For rares, the first windfall is nice, and the ML will convert it later on). Yes, there are other worlds in deck, but not that many.

The intriguing play of Exploring +5 (while keeping both sixes) is tempting, but I think Lou's comment about keeping Consumer Markets or NGO ... how in the Wide Wide World of Sports are you going to pay for the Markets and Free Trade association with that slow a start? And if you grab the NGO, that means you are ditching both other sixes. I'm tempted by the Explore +5, but only for Runaway Robots, New Survivalists, etc (with the reasonable fallback of a <= 2 Military Gene/Alien World). Exploring +5 for Diversified Economy is tempting ... but if I were going to do that I'd be tempted to keep Radioactive World instead of FTA association (for engine development).

Clearly either of these plays could work out. Depends on the other roles selected and peeking at the top cards of the deck ...

So, how'd that work out, you ask? I got bupkis. I believe Bupkis is defined (by Webster) as Contact Specialist, Research Labs and some obscenely expensive world. To make matters worse, there was a develop and no settle. (AC traded, no produce).

I'd describe the following turns, but I figured I was pretty fair behind after turn two, so I tried a T3 consume (with no settle on T1 or T2). That did not end in glory, either. I did eventually drop the mining league, but without an engine built it didn't matter.

That doesn't prove anything, but my bad luck should be shared by all those who picked as I did, so I'm calling the correct answer — Pitch the Free Trade Association and Spice World and settle.

Ten points.

Nine Points for any other combination of cards and a point deduction for not settling. So everyone gets at least an 8.

You are New Sparta in a four player game (everyone but Epsilon Eridani, if you care). Your opening hand is:

• New Vinland (2 Cost Novelty Production, Consume a good for 2 cards).
• Radioactive World (2 Cost Rare Windfall).
• Spice World (2 Cost Novelty Production, Trade a novelty for $2 extra)
• Rebel Miners (2 Military Rare Production)
• Free Trade Association (The 6-dev for novelties)
• Mining League (The 6-dev for rares).

What do you discard and what do you play on your first turn?

Seeing as how the point has come up.

The first settle is tempered by the fear that someone may call trade, drop a windfall, and be off to the races. It's a real tension. (This reminds me of the poisoned craftsman in Puerto Rico). I'm not sure if there's a hard and fast rule.

If you don't have a consume power (and a windfall of your own), then it's less of a problem. You may give up a trade, but you'll get one later on. (Of course, the tempo means that you won't be out of cards). Sparta can settle, but may be better off just exploring to get a few more military cards. The issue there is that Sparta really doesn't want to let those pesky developers get a head start.

Alpha Centauri and Earth's Lost Colony have less incentive to settle, since they can trade/produce without helping anyone else. (ELC is, admittedly, less likely to do this).

Epsilon Eridini (and, amusingly, Earth's Lost Colony) don't necessarily mind getting a poor windfall consume. Eridini gets a card (and a VP), but saves a tempo. ELC gets a VP but can then produce and trade for a bonus VP.

Looking at this from a Game Theoretic point of view, I suspect that you just have to toss a bit of effective randomness in. You don't have to actually be random ... you can use information only you know ... like the cards in your hand.

But if we took a situation where we knew all the cards (say, set hands, but changing them around so that there were windfalls aplenty) then I think the optimal play would be Settle X%, Trade Y% Other Z%. Early on the Trade play will be surprising, and work fairly often. Then people will become suspicious and the Settle % will fall. This will, in turn, make the Trade % plummet. Which allows the Settle % to rise.

So ... no real answers.

Thoughts:

• I'm more likely to settle if I can pick a windfall (if no trade hits) or a nice production world (if it does). And if I've got the matching "produce on a windfall" card, I'll almost certainly do it.
• If my developments are poor, then part of me wants to explore (to get a good one), but that still leaves reasonable odds of coming up empty and seeing only developments.
• Earth's Lost Colony can always produce, for a mini-trade (less upside, but less downside).

[I see Alex has already addressed this point, but I'd already written this...]

Since the issue came up, I figured I'd take a specific look at Diversified Economy.

Diversified Economy -- $4, 2VP Consume -- Consume 3 different goods for 3 VP Produce -- Get one card for each type of good produced.

I called Diversified Economy one of the "Mini-sixes", in that it can provide a healthy stack of VPs and cards. Not all of the 6-Developments are created equal, though. Trade League typically generates a lot of cards and few points, while New Economy is the opposite. Diversified Economy is definitely 'card heavy.' You can drop this as your 3rd or 4th card and then earn 1-2 card every production phase. At that point, you'll still need a way to consume them, but early on you typically trade and then consume any spare goods. In the early game you are focused on your card economy. Compare Diversified Economy to Interstellar Bank. The bank gives you one card every development phase (for 2 cards). if you are getting two cards per production phase for a cost of four, that's about the same.

The difference is that you can (with a good engine) call Develop every turn, while Production is every other turn.

To balance that, Diversified economy has a huge mid- to endgame consumption power. Three goods for 3 VPs. Now, the goods must be different, but that usually means "You must have a genes or alien good." (Novelties and Rares aren't difficult to find). This power isn't much to write home about ... if you already have consumption powers. If you don't, it provides a huge punch. You also avoid buying other consumption powers, which means cheaper worlds. Production worlds without consumption powers are roughly 1 card cheaper, so you can expect 1-2 cards in savings (since you may have to bite the bullet).

Finally, D.E. lets you switch from building to produce/consume (and consunme x2) earlier, which may result in an extra consumption phase. Even if you don't use the consume power, the extra VP from that phase are directly attributable to this card. So, let's assume you get one extra cycle for 2 VPs, (since you traded and used other powers). So D.E. earns you 4 VPs (2 directly, 2 from one extra phase). You get 3 production bonuses (2, 3, 3) and get one world cheaper since you have 'spare' consumption powers. So for 4 cards (+D.E.) you earn ~9 cards in discounts/income and 4 VPs.

If you get an a bonus x2 consume, that number shoots way up.

If you become a production 'pioneer', then the fact that one of your worlds will be a windfall won't matter. For leeching, it will. Diversified Economy isn't a particularly good leech (although most of the 6-Devs aren't, either).

D.E. doesn't combine well with many of the Six-devs, but not all of them combine well enough. It still works with with Free Trade Association or Mining League, although they'll wind up fighting over goods. It's happy with Merchant Guild, and useful with Pan Galactic League or Alien Tech Institute (you'll be able to use the consume power, and neither of those helps in that regard). Most of the other Six-Devs are fairly neutral. (D.E. is +2 VP with New Economy, but you'll probably not get as many VP from your worlds).

Sparta, in particular, often gets a smattering of good and not enough consume powers, which means that even a late D.E. may pay off 3 cards and 5 points (although sometimes you just get the cards).

Overall, even a reasonably late play of Diversified economy will usually net you 3 cards and 3 additional VP, making this a pretty cheap VP boost. And this can hit early, providing a strategy-in-a-can that drives your whole tableau.

Apart from Hailing Caesar, last night was all about the Race.

The six-point developments usually generate significant VPs. If you've got a reasonably amount of synergy (and aren't just dropping them randomly), eight points each seems about average.

I've been thinking about the "near sixes." These are the 4 and 5 cost developments (and planets) that generate significant and variable VPs. Needless to say, they all work via consumption. I suspect new players tend to ignore them.

I've mentioned Consumer Markets before, but it bears repeating ... this provides amazing cardflow even if you don't need the consume powers. But it also means that you can play cards like Artist Colony (or convert New Vinland to VPs). For 5 cost, you get at least 3 VPs. It should net you another 3 or more, not to mention 3-6 cards. In most of my losses yesterday, this card played a role.

Diversified Economy is similar (for a different strategy). It provides a massive amount of consumption in a single card, and provides income. This can easily be worth 5-8 VP (and 3-6 cards).

With the right setup, either of these can dominate any six cost development.

There are several expensive planets. Most of them just have a consumption power (in addition to production), and a handful of VPs. The Alien Robotic Factory is worth 5 VP for $6, and provides a good (that can be consumed -- or more likely traded for five cards). If you could play a Six Dev for 5 Points and the promise of 5 Cards in a few turns ... (and perhaps a few points of consumption later on), that's not so bad, is it?

Galactic Trendesetters is a planet that costs 5, worth 3VP and consumes a good for 2VP. If you use it once, then it's 5 VP (or 4 if you are upgrading from a single VP consume). But if you use it once with Consume x2, then it's up to 7 VP (5 if you are upgrading). That's comparable to an OK Six-Dev in VP. And if you get to use it multiple times ...

Terraformed World is a straight 5 VP for $5, but it has a consume power. If you don't need the power, then this is basically just a "monument" world. (Great VPs).

Compare that with Tourist World -- 2VP for $4, but the 'consume two goods for 3VP' power is a a definite upgrade. At the endgame, you'd rather have a monument, but if you consume x2 twice ...

One issue about the "Near Six" planets is that you can't discount them (when you call settle). While the rebate is similar, this does have breakpoint/handsize considerations.

Anyway, I'm seeing more wins that don't focus on the big developments -- another stage in the strategy evolution.

Learning how to win games that you are losing has been in the forefront of my mind. Reading Wei-Hwa's latest comment, I realized that my thoughts aren't likely to evolve much in the near future, so I'd just throw this out.

These thoughts are definitely provisional.

The first step to come back from a losing game is to accept that you are losing. If you are losing, you are behind the curve (either on income or VPs, depending on the stage of the game). So, if you and your opponent stay on the same curve you can't win. You'll have to get lucky. At some point, you'll have to take a risk.

For example, if your natural play would be to settle a pretty good world, perhaps you can risk someone else calling settle and exploring for a better world. I imagine that most of the plays are variants on that theme.

• Calling your 'perfect' role hoping that your opponent(s) call another role you need.
• Exploring +1 instead of +5 for that one card, hoping to bag your card and a spare.
• Dumping your hand on an expensive card (instead of playing to keep your next obvious play) and hoping that your next big income will allow you to continue on your path.

As Wei-Hwa says, the "leader" should be minimizing exposure to luck. Just select your 'good' role, make the steady play.

When taken together, that means that the leader should be more predictable then the trailing player. [This assumes that the leader has set themselves along a curve and isn't staring at a sudden dip ... like a hand of useless cards].

As a trailing player, you should also look at ways to vary the timing. If you are trailing with a larger tableau, then you have to concentrate on making your builds count more (having a nice 'density') or turning on your consumption engine ASAP. The nice aspect is that you can end the game, or let it go on, according to how the VP are working out.

Standard thoughts about losing apply -- if you are only slightly behind then you may just need to hope for a bit of luck. Would one perfect card salvage your situation? If so, then perhaps an explore +5. If you are grossly behind, then you'll need to swing for the fences.

If this all sounds vague; well, to a certain extent it is. By the time you can really ascertain losing, there are enough cards down to make it a case by case basis.

I'm sure that I am forgetting good pieces of general advice. Perhaps I don't know them yet.

To recap our problem:

You are Earth's Lost Colony. [3 Players, the opponents are Epsilon Eridini and Old Earth]. Your opening hand is:

1. Alien Tech. Institute 2. Alien Rosetta Stone World 3. Destroyed World 4. Drop Ships 5. Galactic Engineers 6. Spice World

What do you discard and what's your first turn plan?

Since many respondents feared commitment (by giving multiple answers) I'm simplifying:

• Several respondents (and some of the voices in Frunk's head) advocated T1 Produce, T2 trade. The Spice World is the lynch-pin to this ... a settle on either turn gives you a four card trade. What to keep besides that varied.
• Tom also produces, but pitches Destroyed World and Galactic Engineers, just to keep the Alien possibility open. (But they are 'probably money.')
• Several others advocated the Explore +1/+1 (I call that the "Greedy explore"). This lets you possibly play a develop (if called, either Drop Ships if you get a suitable military target, or any development). Again, discards varied. Several people split.
• One of the Many Faces of Frunk tries to consume/trade.

I personally thought that it was obvious to pitch the Alien cards ... you can have an excess of riches. To play both of them would require way too many cards, and the sources aren't obvious. I do think that pitching the Tech Institute (and Galactic Engineers or Drop Ships) is reasonable. The Rosetta Stone provides a discount and produces on a windfall, which may be enough to get a reasonable alien world out and go for a diversified economy (or just a huge trade world). I had really put this out there to see what choice people would make on T1 role.

Incidentally, during the game itself, I settled. I assure you producing or exploring was better. (Because there was an explore on T1, I could drop destroyed world and then Spice World on the next settle, assuming I got no reasonable development, which I didn't). Still, the other planets that came out were better.

There's a lot of tension around the first settle, as Frunk's temptation on Consume/Trade shows ... until the production worlds show up, some players have extra options. So I think that those players should be reluctant to Settle, barring an amazingly good play.

Anyway, I'll be on the lookout for more interesting problems.

I always like those in old Bridge Worlds. So, here we go. Answer in the comments.

Problem 1a:

You are Earth's Lost Colony. [3 Players, the opponents are Epsilon Eridini and Old Earth]. Your opening hand is:

1. Alien Tech. Institute
2. Alien Rosetta Stone World
3. Destroyed World
4. Drop Ships
5. Galactic Engineers
6. Spice World

What do you discard and what's your first turn plan?

Problem 1b: As above, but instead of Drop ships you have New Economy.

I've uploaded my spreadsheet of card names/effects. Let me know if you see any errors. (For some reason a card or two doesn't like the sort fuction. I've never seen that before.

I've metioned in various places that I'm fond of the Expedition force for it's "Draw +1 card" during explore phase. How good is this?

Mathematically, this is Hypergeometric distribution (I think). This tells you how likely you'll get X "good" cards if you draw Y cards (out of a deck of known size and with a specific number of good cards). You can look at the numbers in excel by saying "=HYPGEOMDIST(nGood, nDraw, deckGood, deckSize)"

Note that for us, the "Deck" is all unseen cards (including unseen discards, goods, etc). The real question is "What is a good card?" That's tough. Early on, most of the deck counts. As you specialize, I think this number shrinks. I'm making a number of assumptions ... I'm looking at trends, not exact numbers.

Let's start assuming that 60% of the deck is good. For simplicity, 100 card deck, 60 good cards. (That assumes we've seen a few cards built, and spent a few cards).

Let's assume someone else explores. If we don't the expedition force, we get crap 16% of the time. With it, that drops to 6%. Now, if the deck is really good (all great) or really bad, then drawing two or three cards won't matter. But if the deck is only 10% good (10 out of 100), then the extra card drops garbage from 81% shot to a 73% shot. (8 times out of 100, the +1 draw pays off). For a 'moderate' deck, the +1 pays around 15% of the time.

What if we play explore +1/+1. Now we're drawing 4 keep 2 (instead of 3 keep 2 without the expedition force). Now the odds of getting a terrible draw (nothing good) are pretty minor in a rich deck, but you draw two "good cards" an extra 15-20 times out of 100.

Unsurprisingly, where the +1 pays off least is when you are hunting for the last card in a sparse deck. Drawing 7 and 8 are fairly similar.

So, how good is it? Well, if you assume 5 explores after you get the +1 (whether done by you or others), you stand a expect a good card once more. (Which is to say that some games it won't help, some games will gift you twice or more, but once is about right). Five explores seems excessive (and you can't count any you Explore +5), so if you drop it to 3 explores, then the odds drop. (Given all the assumptions, I'm just going to pull a number out of the air and say it helps roughly every other game).

I'm still partial to Expedition Force, but I suspect Space Marines is a better early build (To be fair, it costs more, so it should be better).

[I've now split Race posts into their own category, rather than make a gigantic chain of posts].

Update: One point I missed ... by simply categorizing cards as "Good" or "Bad" I do miss incremental gains. For example, if there are 20 good cards, there may be 7 "Great" and 13 "Goods" and the +1 may let me improve my "Good" to a "Great." But we're getting above my mathematical paygrade. [The Dean of Engineering at my undergrad school always said ... "The next step is dating a mathematician, who solves this for us." Good advice.] This is the point where I could write a simulation, but I think I'll pass.

Based on a discussion on BGG, I've been thinking (and staring at the card list) about the various goods. No New Earth Shattering thoughts, but you get what you pay for:

I've included my numbers below.(I may have made a mistake in calculations, as I'm still finding minor errors in my spreadsheet

Random things that jump out at me:
As the good improves, consume powers fall off. No Alien worlds have a consume power, and only one for Genes and Rares. Plague World consumes a Gene (only) for a VP + card, but is worth 0 VP. Rare's New Earth consumes anything for a VP + Card; but it costs 5 (for 3VP). By contrast, almost half the novelty worlds consume. Having a consume power and a good on the same card is efficient, and means you can (often) start consuming x2 earlier. Three Novelty consume powers are 'only' for cards, though. The Secluded World (1 cost) and New Survivalists (1 defense) consume for a single card (New Survivalists only accepts novelty goods, but that's not a big constraint, and could be an advantage in the endgame). New Vinland consumes for 2 cards, and is one of my favorite early draws.
As the good improves, the windfall percentage increases. Again this points towards novelty as the "world of choice" for a massive consumption power. This also makes the "Produce on a windfall power" more attractive for the better goods. (This ties in with the "Windfall vs Production world" thread).
Genes worlds are barely more expensive than Rare worlds. There are fewer purchased gene worlds (5) vs rare worlds (8), but the costs are almost identical. I would have expected them to cost more, since they return one extra card for trading. On the other hand, Alpha Centauri (and Mining Robots) will discount rare worlds, which shifts the equation.
Rare worlds have an advantage in earning via production. There are 3 worlds that give you a card when they produce (Runaway Robots, Comet Zone and Mining World), as compared to 1 for novelty (Gem World) and the expensive Lost Species Ark World for genes. The Mining Conglomerate provides you two cards with a single rare (if nobody else produces) or two (the more typical max rare produced). This makes it cheaper than its novelty counterpart (Consumer Markets), and it also provides a trade bonus. Rares also have an advantage in that Terraforming Robots provide an excellent Rare consumption power. There's no counterpart for other goods in any cheap development. [But that's a minor point].
To get multiple Gene world into play, you'll need a defense budget. Or a Contact Specialist, of course. There are 6 conquerable Genes worlds, vs 4 for each other type. Space Marines alone (or New Sparta), will mean 11 out of the 18 military goods worlds are yours. (Mostly windfall, but two production worlds in the mix). That's roughly 10% of the deck that you can conquer and trade.

So, what have I taken from this exercise?

1. I don't casually discard Novelty production worlds, especially with those that consume. I've noticed this trend over the last few weeks of our group's play. Later on you'll want cheap goods to power consumption, and there are none cheaper (barring military).
2. I don't ignore rare worlds; but they require infrastructure to shine. On the flip side, the infrastructure is cheap and fairly plentiful (Mining Robots, Alpha Centauri, Mining Conglomerate). (The novelty infrastructure is much rarer/more expensive). I'm happy to drop a rare windfall to start a trade cycle. If I don't have military, it's probably my best option unless I'm lucky enough to get Pre-sentient race.
3. This also means I somewhat understand the "Alpha Centauri is weak" option. I don't agree with it (at all), but I can see what they mean. Rare worlds somewhat pale in comparison to other goods ... but with a -1 cost they are just great.
4. I've mentally upgraded Genetics Lab (+1$ when trading genes, and produce on a Gene windfall), which I almost never built during November/December. With any military, it's surprisingly good. (This actually was a revelation. One of my ugliest losses involved a military player dropping this during my production turn).

   Average Costs (counting only costs, not defense):

   • Novelty - 1.89 [0,1,1,2,2,2,2,3,3]
   • Rare - 2.88 [1,2,2,3,3,3,4,5]
   • Genes - 3 [1,2,3,4,5]
   • Alien - 5.25 [4,5,6,6]

   Average Defense (ignoring worlds with a cost):

   • Novelty - 1.75 [1,1,2,3]
   • Rare - 1.85 [1,1,2,3]
   • Genes - 2.33 [1,2,2,2,3,4]
   • Alien - 4.25 [2,4,5,6]

   Windfall/Production Breakdown:

   • Novelty - 5W/9P
   • Rare - 7W/6P
   • Genes - 7W/4P
   • Alien - 6W/2P

   Worlds with consume powers:

   • Novelty - 6 (out of 14) [Counts Earth's Lost Colony, which is also a Homeworld].
   • Rares - 1 (out of 13).
   • Genes - 1 (out of 11).
   • Alien - 0 (out of 8).

I'm not just playing Race, I'm pondering it. So, let's think out loud on production versus windfall.

How much worse is a windfall world? If you are a producer/consumer, the first windfall is free. (Equivalent). It still produces. Windfall worlds tend to be cheaper than production worlds, and you get the good out one cycle faster to trade/consume. (Settle --> Trade, which is 1 or 2 turns, vs Settle-->Produce-->Trade, which is 2 or 3). If you are "pioneering" produce, dropping a windfall first make sense. The card (and time) you save will help your engine. You'll likely have 1 less VP from the card (and lose out 1-2 VP from the appropriate 6-development, should you play it), but time probably outweighs and earns you back the point.

If you are "leeching" produce the windfall world becomes a one-shot trade/consume power. You probably recoup your card investment, although trading means that you are also spend time. (Conquering a windfall means a generous return on your windfall).

Production worlds, on the other hand, are slower but better leeches, assuming you have consume powers. (For New Sparta, that's a serious issue. Of all the military worlds, only Outlaw World has a general consume power. The others have to be bought or developed).

And while a production "pioneer" gets the first windfall free, others don't produce. Are there still reasons for dropping them (for either the pioneer or leech)? So far I see:

• It's your first goods world, and you aren't sure if you are a pioneer or a leech yet. Early on, the windfall/trade route is a nice burst of cards. That alone is reason to do it. If you are looking like the production pioneer, it's especially tempting.
• Timing — A militarist and leechers want to time the game out before the consumers really start cranking out the VPs. Windfalls, being cheaper, help the timing. This is probably the primary reason that leeches drop windfalls, beside the "burst of income."
• Conversion — You expect to play a card that allows production on windfalls. This can be a nasty shock when production is called. Suddenly you can leech again.
• You've got a big development that will earn a bonus, making them very VP efficient. Pan Galactic League, in particular, gets a 2 VP and card bonus, making those conquered Gene windfall worlds pay off nicely.

My thoughts on this are still under flux, but that's a good starting point for discussion.

I'm not sure how important these are, but they are things that I'm noticing more and more as I play. Some of these are listed by Mark as Beginner's concepts, so I'm slow.

• Classifying cards as "Play or Money" means don't play cards just because. If you only hold cards that aren't terribly useful, then save them for cash. (Obvious exceptions: if your plan isn't clear and a card provides income, or you'll end up discarding anyway). But in several games last night I thought — "Well, I can play this" quickly squashed by "No rush ... if that's the right card I'll know it after I trade, and my timing will be fine."
• Timing trumps discounts. I lost one game (I believe) because I developed some Investment Credits, so that I could discount my crucial development next turn. This cost a turn I couldn't afford. If you miss a discount for a card or two, but it lets you trade your windfall (or start your produce/consume cycle) a turn earlier, giving up the discount is a minor price. You can always drop it later, if you like.
• Flexibility. One of the nicest feelings is being able to call a phase and have choices based on what phases are coming up. Here's the most synergistic opening I've seen in a while. Investment Credits, Space Marines, Robot Alien Sentry, Avian Uplift Race. You call Develop, and if there's a settle you drop the Space Marines (I'd personally pay with the Credits, but I'm not entirely convinced). If not, you drop the Credits and then Develop again for Space Marines. If there's still no Settle, you hit it on Turn 3.
• Some engines are luckier than others. Setting up multiple Alien Worlds and calling Produce/Trade/Trade hoping for the Tech Institute is fragile ... you need one card out of the deck for big VPs (although you can also score by getting Research Labs, and a few other cards while you wait). Setting up a consume/trade cycle with one alien world and two novelty goods has you aiming for a few cards. (Consumer Markets, Diversified Economy + a rare/gene world, Free Trade Association, and others). When building your economic engine, build a lucky one (unless you already hold the critical cards). [This requires an idea of what cards are out there, definitely an intermediate concept.]
• Consuming multiple goods (with one) is powerful. You need to get lots of production goods (with maybe a windfall), but they save you a card or two of development. Consumer Markets is a 'strategy in a card.' Not just because of the income — it consume 3 worlds. Assuming you trade a rare good, you have a 2 turn cycle of 6 cards income, 3 VPs for 5 cards in your tableau. By my count only 4 cards both produce a good and consume it. Barring multiple consumption 3 VPs with a trade good often requires 7 cards (3 Production worlds, 1 Windfall or Production, 3 consumption powers). (Galactic Trendsetters counts here, since it consumes a single good for 2 VP)
• Tableau size is a restriction. An engine that takes two less cards will take less time to get going. A corollary.

Anyway, Merry XMas. Time to open presents!

I played a game of Power Grid! On the Central Europe Map! With the new Deck.

It broke up Race for the Galaxy into two blocks, totaling roughly six hours. As Eric said, this is the Race Blog until further notice.

Power Grid was good — I like the new deck, as the order is a bit more mixed some "High cost, many cities" options right next to "cheap and clean" ... a less orderly progression, and fewer "I can't imagine buying that" choices. There was a time when Power Grid was my "Yeah, let's play that" game of choice. Partially because it was online, but it's just inoffensive.

I was thinking about it yesterday, and how much more Power Grid do I need? I've got four expansion maps, two decks and a nice version of the Atolla Modulis (actually, two copies of that). Even if I play Power Grid once a month, that's only twice a year for each map (assuming I ignore the Atols). That's enough variety. Age of Steam is the same way (and I haven't even gotten a game of that in this year ... the shame). I long ago decided that I have more 18xx games than I need (although I'd still like to try some of the new ones).

Some expansions toss stuff in, but the "New Map" expansion seems limited for all but the most hard care of people. Just an idle thought while I wait for the Race expansion.

Anyway, I've finally gotten Research Labs to work, although I still consider slapping it down early a desperation move (unless you tagged a small Alien world and are producing/trading). Using the Labs in a Pioneer role (by constantly exploring) just gives up too much timing control. So you have to slap it down, explore 1-2 times to deduce what the cards are telling you and build up a hand, and then go ahead. Not a stunning insight, but still satisfying to win with.

There's a thread on the Merchant Guild that left me wondering ... which is the least useful big (6-cost) development? Obviously they all require you to go in a specific strategy ...

New Economy, I'm looking at you. Discuss.

(Incidentally, the rulebook says 15 developments consume one or more goods. I count 16. Given all developments come in pairs, save the sixes, I make the "Big ones" as Mining League, Free Trade, New Economy and Trade League. Trade League does have a consume (as well as trade) power, right? Is that a typo in the charts?)